False dichotomy aside, I’ll humor you for the sake of the Socratic argument and hope that you arrive at a fair point: No it would obviously be unacceptable to me.
It’s not acceptable. Nobody would choose this, certainly not me. I didn’t put the family there, didn’t drop the bomb, didn’t build the tunnels under their house, didn’t refuse to evacuate. I also suspect that the man, sticking around in Gaza City, knew what he signed himself and his daughter up for. How could they not?
But I understand the choices western policymakers have to make, and the guy and his daughter are just not a significant factor in the decision tree. 25,000 guys and daughters like that are not significant factors in the decision tree.
The decision tree rather involves tens of millions of people, including that guy and his daughter.
I would agree with you if Israel had not bombed areas it deemed ‘Safe Zones’ several times killing twice and thrice displaced Palestinians who are shocked, starving, dehydrated, and incapable of getting medical treatment or even fuel for their car to leave.
The argument of the safe zones or Gaza city all falls apart once you read the facts.
You seem like a smart person. How do you feel about the IDF bombing areas they told people to move to? And how do you feel about the IDF forcing people to evacuate areas in which the refugee camps are already full, meaning there would never be enough space or food for them?
As I understand, less than 100 civilians were killed in strikes on refugee camps and on humanitarian corridors. War is hectic and so was the evacuation. This is again one of the examples of something tragic that happened once or twice, and people reporting on it as of it was the only thing happening.
If there were indiscriminate bombings on such locations, that would be evidence of war crimes. They seem very discriminate to me. IDF claims in one such attack, they got 40 Hamas members or something having a meeting in a mosque, of course they barred the doors and had a bunch of women and children in there with them to be used as human shields. Their deaths therefore are on Hamas, they locked them in there because they knew what could happen and they get sympathy when they do, instead of being held responsible for all the innocent lives.
There is no place I know of trying to keep this tally but this is where I got the number from. I see looking at this now that it appears out of date despite recent edits and includes only the humanitarian route airstrikes, not refugee camps; there are less than 100 dead in strikes on the humanitarian corridors, according this:
Indeed though, my original claim here was not completely accurate so thanks for making me flesh it out. The number of people killed at refugee camps is much higher last I checked this page, and seems to be in the range of like 500 to 600:
One such strike killed 50 civilians that were packed into a mosque and forced to stay there by Hamas, as apparently 40-odd members of Hamas held some sort of command meeting in an underground bunker. The airstrike killed a Hamas commander responsible for multiple terror attacks back to 2004, numerous rocket attacks, and the October 7 attack.
IDF says it used a bunker buster to target the underground bunker and that subsequently the bunker and connecting tunnels collapsed along with the adjacent apartment building. IDF says that minutes before the air strike, residents of the buildings near the site were warned to leave the area.
This strike has been widely reported as being part of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign against civilians. Palestinian Health authority, which is very credible with death reporting, says 50 civilians were killed. Hamas, which has zero credibility, says 400 civilians were killed.
This is one of the allegations in South Africa’s complaint that is repeated approximately a dozen times times in different sections for different reasons. For example, it is cited as an example of Israel telling people of Gaza to evacuate southward and then bombing a target in the south. If it was true that Israel was simply bombing refugees as they evacuated, that would obviously be a war crime. It is cited as evidence that the IDF is targeting civilian homes. If it was true that Israel was simply bombing homes in order to destroy the places where people live, that would obviously also be evidence of a war crime.
However, if it is true that: Israel was targeting an active Hamas leadership operation and part of Hamas’s massive underground military base, the strike killed a veteran Hamas commander, killed 40 other Hamas militants, people in the nearby buildings were warned before the bombs fell, and that Israel used ordinance designed to limit surface destruction while taking out underground military targets, than it literally cannot be called “indiscriminate.” Seems like it was very well planned and executed, narrowly tailored, and launched in a way to minimize civilian casualties. Again, Hamas put the civilians in the buildings, put the tunnel under the building, conducted terrorist operations from under the buildings, and then when Israel justifiably destroyed the tunnels and killed the terrorists occupying them, the structure above collapsed.
Again, this is Hamas’s strategy. They turned the foundation of the an entire city into Swiss cheese and then launched a war from it. As the tunnels get destroyed, the entire area becomes unstable. This is one reason why in my country you must obtain a building permit and structural engineering report before digging tunnels. Hamas’s strategy is to maximize civilian casualties in order to gain sympathy. Nevermind that on October 7 Hamas militants literally went to a concert, restaurants, and public streets and just fired indiscriminately on women and children and families as they drove to dinner or listened to a show.
I agree there must be a balancing between likely civilian casualties and military advantage. If the circumstances of this attack are as I’ve described them, do you agree that Israel’s strike was morally justified? I do.
False dichotomy aside, I’ll humor you for the sake of the Socratic argument and hope that you arrive at a fair point: No it would obviously be unacceptable to me.
The lack of a false dichotomy aside,
Thanks for answering, so now why would it make it acceptable for Palestinians?
It’s not acceptable. Nobody would choose this, certainly not me. I didn’t put the family there, didn’t drop the bomb, didn’t build the tunnels under their house, didn’t refuse to evacuate. I also suspect that the man, sticking around in Gaza City, knew what he signed himself and his daughter up for. How could they not?
But I understand the choices western policymakers have to make, and the guy and his daughter are just not a significant factor in the decision tree. 25,000 guys and daughters like that are not significant factors in the decision tree.
The decision tree rather involves tens of millions of people, including that guy and his daughter.
I would agree with you if Israel had not bombed areas it deemed ‘Safe Zones’ several times killing twice and thrice displaced Palestinians who are shocked, starving, dehydrated, and incapable of getting medical treatment or even fuel for their car to leave.
The argument of the safe zones or Gaza city all falls apart once you read the facts.
You seem like a smart person. How do you feel about the IDF bombing areas they told people to move to? And how do you feel about the IDF forcing people to evacuate areas in which the refugee camps are already full, meaning there would never be enough space or food for them?
As I understand, less than 100 civilians were killed in strikes on refugee camps and on humanitarian corridors. War is hectic and so was the evacuation. This is again one of the examples of something tragic that happened once or twice, and people reporting on it as of it was the only thing happening.
If there were indiscriminate bombings on such locations, that would be evidence of war crimes. They seem very discriminate to me. IDF claims in one such attack, they got 40 Hamas members or something having a meeting in a mosque, of course they barred the doors and had a bunch of women and children in there with them to be used as human shields. Their deaths therefore are on Hamas, they locked them in there because they knew what could happen and they get sympathy when they do, instead of being held responsible for all the innocent lives.
Sorry, do you mean 100 civilians OVERALL since October 8th?
Yes in air strikes on
refugee camps andthe humanitarian corridors. Although I believe that figure is a couple of weeks old.Could you source that claim? It sounds grossly inaccurate.
There is no place I know of trying to keep this tally but this is where I got the number from. I see looking at this now that it appears out of date despite recent edits and includes only the humanitarian route airstrikes, not refugee camps; there are less than 100 dead in strikes on the humanitarian corridors, according this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_Palestinians_evacuating_Gaza_City
Indeed though, my original claim here was not completely accurate so thanks for making me flesh it out. The number of people killed at refugee camps is much higher last I checked this page, and seems to be in the range of like 500 to 600:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp_airstrikes_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
One such strike killed 50 civilians that were packed into a mosque and forced to stay there by Hamas, as apparently 40-odd members of Hamas held some sort of command meeting in an underground bunker. The airstrike killed a Hamas commander responsible for multiple terror attacks back to 2004, numerous rocket attacks, and the October 7 attack.
IDF says it used a bunker buster to target the underground bunker and that subsequently the bunker and connecting tunnels collapsed along with the adjacent apartment building. IDF says that minutes before the air strike, residents of the buildings near the site were warned to leave the area.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/b1enracf6
https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1719469821207752998?lang=en
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-says-it-fires-israeli-troops-pressing-gaza-ground-assault-2023-10-31/
This strike has been widely reported as being part of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign against civilians. Palestinian Health authority, which is very credible with death reporting, says 50 civilians were killed. Hamas, which has zero credibility, says 400 civilians were killed.
This is one of the allegations in South Africa’s complaint that is repeated approximately a dozen times times in different sections for different reasons. For example, it is cited as an example of Israel telling people of Gaza to evacuate southward and then bombing a target in the south. If it was true that Israel was simply bombing refugees as they evacuated, that would obviously be a war crime. It is cited as evidence that the IDF is targeting civilian homes. If it was true that Israel was simply bombing homes in order to destroy the places where people live, that would obviously also be evidence of a war crime.
However, if it is true that: Israel was targeting an active Hamas leadership operation and part of Hamas’s massive underground military base, the strike killed a veteran Hamas commander, killed 40 other Hamas militants, people in the nearby buildings were warned before the bombs fell, and that Israel used ordinance designed to limit surface destruction while taking out underground military targets, than it literally cannot be called “indiscriminate.” Seems like it was very well planned and executed, narrowly tailored, and launched in a way to minimize civilian casualties. Again, Hamas put the civilians in the buildings, put the tunnel under the building, conducted terrorist operations from under the buildings, and then when Israel justifiably destroyed the tunnels and killed the terrorists occupying them, the structure above collapsed.
Again, this is Hamas’s strategy. They turned the foundation of the an entire city into Swiss cheese and then launched a war from it. As the tunnels get destroyed, the entire area becomes unstable. This is one reason why in my country you must obtain a building permit and structural engineering report before digging tunnels. Hamas’s strategy is to maximize civilian casualties in order to gain sympathy. Nevermind that on October 7 Hamas militants literally went to a concert, restaurants, and public streets and just fired indiscriminately on women and children and families as they drove to dinner or listened to a show.
I agree there must be a balancing between likely civilian casualties and military advantage. If the circumstances of this attack are as I’ve described them, do you agree that Israel’s strike was morally justified? I do.